Couldn’t think of a better title…and I know you know what I am talking about. My issue with this…well, issue…is that Perez Hilton himself is handling her response wrong. He does a video blog after the pageant and expresses his disappointment with her answer, by calling her a “dumb b*tch”. Sounded a little more like anger than mere disappointment, but…
Well, if you don’t know what I am talking about, basically Miss California when asked her stance on gay marriage answered with disagreement that it was okay, stating that she believes “that a marriage should be between a man and a woman”. She has been criticized for more than just the content of the answer itself-that being her stance on the issue. She is also receiving flack for the way in which she did it-some claim it to be poorly answered, and that she had a “lack of poise”.
A minor point from the questioner, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, was that during the first part of his video blog, she was booed. I haven’t been hearing the boos, and I’ve heard the clip probably 10 times now. Nonetheless, Perez is just “disappointed.” Remember that as he explains to us why she lost. Apparently, she didn’t lose because she had an opinion on gay marriage (which Perez obviously disagrees with anyway), but because she is dumb. He gives us the perfect answer to his question, and this is what troubles me. Here is what he says Miss California should have said:
“Hmm, Perez. That’s a great question. That’s a very hot topic in our country right now, and I think that is a question that each state should decide for themselves; because that’s how our forefathers designed our government. The states rule themselves and there are certain laws that are federal.”
Perez goes onto say that Miss USA shouldn’t alienate people but unite and inspire. He says that his disappointment is not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, but because she doesn’t unite or inspire. One question that comes to my mind on that first comment is how one would portray elements of unity and inspiration in a 30 second answer. Granted, her seeming to stumble over her words might not be the most inspiring, but is her opinion one that does not unify (whether that unity is good or bad)?
And let’s make sure of what the question at hand is. Are we asking whether we agree with her opinion, or are we asking whether the content of her answer was well demonstrated or well presented? Even Perez Hilton, who obviously supports gay marriage, wants the audience of that blog to dissociate his disappointment with her answer as one that has anything to do with her opinion on the issue of gay marriage. So, if we completely ignore her stance on gay marriage, we are left with a few things to look at. But that’s my point. What if she had been for gay marriage but said her answer in the exact same manner?
What if we created that scenario-where we could analyze the content of her answer completely separate from her opinion? To do that, let’s just use the transcript of what she said and replace the one part about marriage being between a man and a woman. Let’s take a look (to see/hear the original answer, click here):
“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage, and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage can be between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman). No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it can be: between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman).”
It’s clear that she was using certain phrases that could have been omitted, and she was a bit redundant, in some sense. It can happen when one is nervous, and we can forever pin her for that. I mean, “opposite marriage” is the biggest phrase nowadays; that is a mystery to me because I know that had she just added the word ‘sex’ after the word opposite, she wouldn’t have been getting so much flack for it.
But in order for Perez Hilton to be consistent with his disappointment, since he claims it has nothing to do with her stance on gay marriage, he would still have to come out and make a video blog if she gave the response that I posted above. He might still think she is dumb for the way she said it, but if he truly thought that this issue is supposed to be “up to each state”, then the answer that included the opinion for gay marriage would still render Perez’s comment of calling Miss California a “dumb b*tch”.
So, I think when Perez said that “if she had half a brain, she would have answered this way”, I think what he really meant was, “if anyone had a negative opinion on gay marriage, those with half a brain would have answered this way”. Perez-I think your disappointment has everything to do with her stance on gay marriage.
Really, can we imagine his response if she was for gay marriage? Would he really call her a dumb b*tch? I highly doubt it. I tend to think if he had something to say on it at that point, he would probably not think of her as so dumb because, even if she poorly delivered her answer, at least in the end she was for gay marriage. I am not saying this was necessarily Perez’s intention, but I have a feeling this is a way of telling us who have this particular opinion on the issue of gay marriage to respond to it. Maybe we should leave it to the states, but can we not as individuals hold our opinion on the issue regardless of what it is?
So here comes the interview Perez had with MSNBC (Link here). He said he was “incredibly shocked, frustrated and hurt” by her answer. Would Perez have been hurt and frustrated by the answer, despite her delivery, if she said she was for gay marriage? As Perez continues, it’s clear that despite what he said in his blog, it is the very fact that she said she was against gay marriage that had alienated gays and lesbians. This is despite the fact that he reiterates that his frustration is not because of her stance on gay marriage. Finally, when Perez was asked about his apology to the word he used (again, female dog…), he even retracted the apology, saying that he will stand by what he said because she stood by what she said. Not that it needs to be said again, but this clearly shows that it has everything to do with her stance. He even added that he said the b-word, but was “thinking the c-word, but I didn’t say it”.
There you have it, folks. This was a lengthy post, but I hope you understand now what is going on. It is wrong, to some extent, to have an opinion. That is the problem. Or perhaps the problem is that some people are not going to like our opinions. That shouldn’t be a problem, though. I would get over someone not liking my opinion-I deal with it every day. Do we just not associate with people of opposite opinions, though? Do we call them dumb and show our anger, perhaps hatred toward them? We can, but should we?